Legal Opinion

Turner v. Peck

New York Court of Chancery

Decided May 25, 1846PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was an appeal, by the defendant, from a decree of the vice chancellor of the fifth circuit. In April, 1829, J. Whaley, the father-in-law of the defendant, owned a state certificate which entitled him to a patent for lot No-. 213, in East Oswego village, upon the payment of $30, which remained due to the state for the balance of the purchase money.

Read the full summary

This was an appeal, by the defendant, from a decree of the vice chancellor of the fifth circuit. In April, 1829, J. Whaley, the father-in-law of the defendant, owned a state certificate which entitled him to a patent for lot No-. 213, in East Oswego village, upon the payment of $30, which remained due to the state for the balance of the purchase money. And on the 27th of that month, he sold and conveyed to Adeline Clark the north half of the lot, by deed with warranty; which conveyance was duly acknowledged, and on the 15th of August, in the same year, was recorded in the office of the clerk…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The first question for consideration in this cause is what equitable interest C. Woodruff had in the lot, No. 213, and what were his legal rights in the same, after he obtained the patent from the state, and until his conveyance to the defendant, without consideration, on the oth of September, 1834. Previous to the contract with Davis, for the southwest quarter of the lot, and the conveyance to Miss Clark'of the north half thereof, Whaley was the equitable owner of the whole lot, subject to the payment of the $30, due to the state, for the unpaid purchase money. By the…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Warren v. FennNew York Supreme Court · 1858

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API